JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra, H.P., in MACP RBT No. 59-K/07/2010, decided on 14.09.2011. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving right to the present appeal are that the claimant/respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “respondent No. 1”) maintained a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the injuries sustained by him in the accident caused by respondent No. 3 while driving the vehicle owned of respondent No. 2. in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle being driven by respondent No. 3, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of respondent No. 1 when he was going on his scooter. As a result, respondent No. 1 sustained injuries and remained hospitalized from 23.01.2005 to 15.02.2005. As per the claimant, he incurred Rs.35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand) on his medical expenses. Respondent No. 1 has stated that he is plumber and contractor having monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. He has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10%. At the relevant time the vehicle was insured with appellant-company. The accident was reported to Police at Police Station, Dharamshala and FIR No. 14 of 2006 was registered. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have admitted the accident, but have denied their liability. The appellant- Company has denied its liability on the ground that the driver was not having an effective valid driving licence. Besides this, appellant- Company has also taken preliminary objections, with respect to non-joinder of necessary parties, vehicle was being driven in violation of terms of the insurance policy, such as without permit. As per the appellant-Company, respondent No. 3 was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and further fact that respondent No. 1 (claimant) is having no source of income is also denied. 3. The learned Tribunal below has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving Van No. HP-01-0911 on 23.01.2005? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what compensation petition is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether petition was himself rash and negligent in driving his scooter? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving Van No. HP-01-0911 on 23.01.2005? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what compensation petition is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether petition was himself rash and negligent in driving his scooter? OPR 4. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 5. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and route permit of the offending vehicle? OPR 6. Relief.” After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 (claimant) the learned Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 3,73,000/- to respondent No. 1 (claimant) as compensation alongwith 7.5% per annum interest. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the appellant-Company has argued that the compensation was granted by the learned Tribunal below on account of loss of earning is on a very higher side. Learned counsel has further argued that the permanent disability was only 4% to whole of the body, but the learned Tribunal below has taken the same to be 10% to whole of the body and has also calculated the income to the extent of Rs.1,68,000/- (rupees one lac sixty eight thousand). She has further argued that the learned Tribunal below has awarded Rs.1,20,000/- (rupees one lac twenty thousand) for the totalloss of income for one year. However, respondent No. 1 (claimant) himself has stated that he only remained without work for 6-7 months. She has also argued that the income of respondent No. 1 has been wrongly assessed, which is on a very higher side. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the income has been properly assessed, as respondent No. 1 was working as a Plumber and he is an ITI diploma holder and taking into consideration the nature of his work, his disability is required to be considered more than 25%, but the learned Tribunal below has only taken the disability to the extent of 10%. He has further argued that respondent No. 1 (claimant) remained without work for a year and he has stated so in his evidence. 5. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 6. Ex. He has further argued that respondent No. 1 (claimant) remained without work for a year and he has stated so in his evidence. 5. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 6. Ex. PW-6/A is the disability certificate, which shows that respondent No. 1 was having 10% disability qua his leg. However, Dr. G.D. Gupta (PW-6) has stated that disability qua whole body was 4%. Shri Subhash Kumar (PW-4/claimant) has specifically stated that he is having ITI course, which he has done from ITI, Shimla, and thereafter he was working as a Plumber and was having works at that time at Gysto Monastry Sidhbari, Upper TCV and Kirki Monastry, at the time of his accident. An ITI diploma holder doing plumbering work at that time and was having sufficient work at that time, as per the evidence which has come on record, this Court finds that the income of respondent No. 1 (claimant) which was taken as Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month by the learned Tribunal below, cannot be said to be excessive, in any manner. Now the question remains about the disability. It is a settled law that the disability is to be considered taking into consideration the profession of the individual. 7. In this case, the claimant is doing the plumbering work and he has specifically stated that after the accident, it is difficult for him to climb here and there and to do the work in a proper manner. In these circumstances, I am unable to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Company that claimant’s (respondent No. 1’s) disability is required to be taken as 4% qua whole body for the reason that he is doing the work and he is using his leg frequently. In any case, the disability cannot be said to be less than 10%. Therefore, I find no illegality in the judgment of the learned Tribunal below taking the disability at 10% qua whole body, while calculating the compensation. 8. Now the next question, which is required to be taken into consideration, is with respect to award of Rs.1,20,000/- (one lac twenty thousand) towards the loss of income for one year. Respondent No. 1 (claimant) while appearing in the witness-box as PW-4 has specifically stated that he remained without work for one year. 8. Now the next question, which is required to be taken into consideration, is with respect to award of Rs.1,20,000/- (one lac twenty thousand) towards the loss of income for one year. Respondent No. 1 (claimant) while appearing in the witness-box as PW-4 has specifically stated that he remained without work for one year. It has also come on record that he was unable to move his leg in the same fashion and thee is no controversy qua the evidence to the effect that respondent No. 1 (claimant), in fact, remained without work for one year. Therefore, I find no illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal below granting compensation Rs.1,20,000/- (rupees one lac twenty thousand) towards the loss of income for one year he remained without work. 9. Lastly, coming to the grant of compensation awarded for the attendant charges, this Court finds that Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand) were given to the attendant by respondent No. 1 (claimant) and it is stated by PW-7, Shri Tarsem Kumar, attendant, that the wife of respondent No. 1 (claimant) also attended the claimant. Therefore, I find no illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal below in granting Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) towards the total attendant charges, as the wife of the claimant is also allowed to be given attendant charges. 10. No other point argued neither requires any consideration. Resultantly, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal below. Appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, with no orders as to costs. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.